Summer Rumour Mill

[duncanjwitham]

9 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

The first 2 plus Sibley are still saleable assets though, despite our recent financial woes. We've lost out on the like Gordon and Williams but that's admin for ya. So our issue is still with Morris, he ruined that future. DC restructuring and potentially refining the academy process and integration into first team- he may as well do it at this point when we are still a bit chaotic. I think it was more a case of when than if, so may as well start that process now?

We might have lost the absolute top players, but there are still a lot of players in the academy though.  If we radically change the type of player we want to produce, we're basically writing off most of those and starting the whole process again.  So in 5 years time, we start producing big, strong, quick players for Paul Warne's system.  But Paul Warne almost certainly won't be here then.  And if we've appointed another McClaren-type, then we reset again, and in 5 years time etc etc.  It's a losing battle gearing the academy around the manager.

If the club wants to make a decision that we only want to play Warne-style football, and we're going to set the academy up to do that, and appoint managers to do that, then OK. But I think that's a crazy decision to make because, as much as anything, I think there's near-zero chance that Warne-style football will be effective at even top-end Championship level, let alone Premier League.

[DCFC1388]

27 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's part of the issue I'm getting at though - we were just starting to see the results of the investment Morris put into the academy, many years later.  You'd got the ones that did break through Bird, Knight, Buchanan, Ebosele, Lowe etc. And Kaide Gordon, Liam Delap, Dylan Williams, the lad that went to Villa etc, the 3 lads that went to Man Utd etc, all basically forced out due to admin/cost-cutting.  

If we want to radically change the type of academy players we're producing, we're basically writing off the next 5+ years.

Not really as our acadamy is threadbare currently so ic we are having a change in ethos then now is the time to do it. We will need to bring in 15+ players for our u21s this summer so we would recruit to suit the style

[Caerphilly Ram]

8 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

We might have lost the absolute top players, but there are still a lot of players in the academy though.  If we radically change the type of player we want to produce, we're basically writing off most of those and starting the whole process again.  So in 5 years time, we start producing big, strong, quick players for Paul Warne's system.  But Paul Warne almost certainly won't be here then.  And if we've appointed another McClaren-type, then we reset again, and in 5 years time etc etc.  It's a losing battle gearing the academy around the manager.

If the club wants to make a decision that we only want to play Warne-style football, and we're going to set the academy up to do that, and appoint managers to do that, then OK. But I think that's a crazy decision to make because, as much as anything, I think there's near-zero chance that Warne-style football will be effective at even top-end Championship level, let alone Premier League.

Where does this idea come from that the players can only be one thing or another? As an example all modern goalkeepers and defenders are expected to be comfortable with the ball at their feet aren’t they? So they’ll be recruited and trained with that in mind. 
The young players recruited for the academy will all grow and develop in different ways and at different stages so although there is no doubt some science and analysis involved there’s no way the academy recruitment can only be geared around “big, strong, quick” players. 
Premier league clubs with academies have changing managers with differing personalities and footballing philosophies don’t they? I get there needs to be a general direction for the academy and the development of players in line with the first team of a club, but they’ll all be recruited first and foremost on their talent as footballers then shaped towards a style of play, that doesn’t mean they can’t learn another way of playing the game. Passing, tackling, shooting, running, touch, postions all coachable regardless of footballing philosophy surely? 

[duncanjwitham]

5 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

Not really as our acadamy is threadbare currently so ic we are having a change in ethos then now is the time to do it. We will need to bring in 15+ players for our u21s this summer so we would recruit to suit the style

I'm not really talking about U21s though.  I deliberately didn't mention the players we picked up late on who came through (Plange, Ebiowei, Bogle etc), as there's obviously a bit more flexibility there.  But if you're recruiting for the U11s or something, there's just no point even considering what the current manager wants.

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Where does this idea come from that the players can only be one thing or another? As an example all modern goalkeepers and defenders are expected to be comfortable with the ball at their feet aren’t they? So they’ll be recruited and trained with that in mind. 
The young players recruited for the academy will all grow and develop in different ways and at different stages so although there is no doubt some science and analysis involved there’s no way the academy recruitment can only be geared around “big, strong, quick” players. 
Premier league clubs with academies have changing managers with differing personalities and footballing philosophies don’t they? I get there needs to be a general direction for the academy and the development of players in line with the first team of a club, but they’ll all be recruited first and foremost on their talent as footballers then shaped towards a style of play, that doesn’t mean they can’t learn another way of playing the game. Passing, tackling, shooting, running, touch, postions all coachable regardless of footballing philosophy surely? 

No player is going to be good at everything though, it's impossible.  And "shaped towards a style of play" is exactly what I'm getting at.  If you want to produce players for a Paul Warne team, you'll recruit, train and develop those players very differently to if you are doing it for a McClaren team.  Would Max Bird be the same player if he'd spent his formative years running box-to-box in a 343 system, rather than sitting in midfield in a 433? I suspect not.

And as for the Premier League teams, the teams that have successfully developed young players are the ones who've had a consistent style of play for a long time.  Southampton and Arsenal are obvious examples - changes in managers fairly often, but never radical changes in how the first team plays.

[McMuffin]

[May Contain Nuts]

I'll lazily lob Forests academy in as a wildcard for this discussion.

They've certainly changed the style of first team manager on a pretty regular basis but it hasn't in any meaningful way appeared to impact on their ability to bring players through to the first team squad or turn a good profit.

I think I remember (could be wrong) reading that they just try to bring through players who are a bit 'jack of all trades' but with the right physical characteristics, leaving them free to be moulded into whatever suits (by them or who they sell to) when they get a bit older?

...so maybe instead of all this worrying about what we're building toward a very specific future we should consider <spit> doing something similar.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[Guest]

There's a lot on here being said by posters who never make a contribution or show an interest in the Academy Forum on here. The regular posters on there show an interest, watch the games and what they have to say about the academy is far more informed than what is being said on this thread. Unless you know a bit about what is happening in the academy stick to the first team or alternatively start watching the academy sides a bit more before giving the rest of us your 'informed' opinions. The academy is regarded as an asset and the recent appointments in terms of recruitment and management indicate it will continue to be regarded as such by the ownership.

It was due to the input of a lot of academy players who were thrown in at the deep end that our club was not relegated on the pitch but because of the administrative failures of the Morris regime. The academy has never let us down.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Brailsford Ram

[Sparkle]

3 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm slightly exaggerating of course (and it's a reference to the Will Hughes/Rowett thing as much as anything), but Warne's teams at Rotherham certainly didn't play in a way which involved central midfielders getting on the ball and passing it a lot.  It was very much everyone runs forward to attack and runs back to defend, get it wide quickly and get crosses in etc.  We certainly got more like that as last season went on as well.  And I don't see where player like Max Bird (for one) fits in a team like that.

Probably true but Warne was restricted by a Rotherham budget so you make the best of what you have got - he needs time and we will see what he can do in a unrestricted way 

[Old Spalding Ram]

17 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Probably true but Warne was restricted by a Rotherham budget so you make the best of what you have got - he needs time and we will see what he can do in a unrestricted way 

Matt Taylor managed to keep Rotherham up last year on the lowest Championship wage bill after six years of the Rotherham yo-yo.

I’m confident of leaving League One this year, Warne’s real test comes the year after. 👍

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kokosnuss said:

I'll lazily lob Forests academy in as a wildcard for this discussion.

They've certainly changed the style of first team manager on a pretty regular basis but it hasn't in any meaningful way appeared to impact on their ability to bring players through to the first team squad or turn a good profit.

I think I remember (could be wrong) reading that they just try to bring through players who are a bit 'jack of all trades' but with the right physical characteristics, leaving them free to be moulded into whatever suits (by them or who they sell to) when they get a bit older?

...so maybe instead of all this worrying about what we're building toward a very specific future we should consider <spit> doing something similar.

Has Forest's academy ever competed in the UEFA under 21 competition? No. Ours has and would have continued to do so had it not been for administration. The performance of our academy has been outstanding for a club outside the Premier League. Forest's has not.

[InstaRam]

The problem with academies is that the average rule applies and the time to surpass the average takes so long. A lousy academy can happen to bring in a super talent who happens to stay injury free and break through during peak form and yippee everything has come together nicely. Meanwhile, a well-run academy can spend years polishing gray stones without finding a diamond. I would think that by far the most important thing is to find the right raw materials and then most things will take care of themselves as long as you have a decent level. For example, Rio Ferdinand, Lampard, Joe Cole and Carrick would very likely have become national team members regardless of academy affiliation. It was like only partially thanks to West Hams academy that they became superstars.

Then also I think an academy like ours needs to find "an own way" of doing it. Today, in principle, all young player training is aimed at making the players skilled enough on the ball to be able to outplay the opponent and win by being the more skilled team. The downside to that approach is that the players being trained only learn one way to win, namely by "being the better team" as they call it. At the same time, there will always be other teams that are "even better" and there I think you increasingly see that something is missing in today's youth teams which could be one way of tweaking the academy training. Focus on different ways of winning for example and develop players with know how to win in whatever way possible.

Just an general observation from the outside so might be way off tough. Don't claim to have any insight in our acadamy.

Edited June 21, 2023 by InstaRam

[Andicis]

57 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Has Forest's academy ever competed in the UEFA under 21 competition? No. Ours has and would have continued to do so had it not been for administration. The performance of our academy has been outstanding for a club outside the Premier League. Forest's has not.

I like our academy, but it's worth asking the question when was the last player we produced that really ''made'' it? Knight, Sibley and Bird are decent but other clubs are producing players worth 10s of millions. Hendrick was the last academy product we sold for good money. 

[Nuwtfly]

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I like our academy, but it's worth asking the question when was the last player we produced that really ''made'' it? Knight, Sibley and Bird are decent but other clubs are producing players worth 10s of millions. Hendrick was the last academy product we sold for good money. 

Sadly we’ll never really know as half of it had to be flogged along with the family silver thanks to Uncle Mel

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Has Forest's academy ever competed in the UEFA under 21 competition? No. Ours has and would have continued to do so had it not been for administration. The performance of our academy has been outstanding for a club outside the Premier League. Forest's has not.

The conversation wasn't about who's academy teams play the better football against other academies though, it was about developing players for the first team squad who can go on to reach their full potential in the professional game by adopting a certain approach throughout the club.

As wonderful as watching that team was a few years ago it hasn't particularly set them up with the sort of career they might have imagined, whereas players who never played in that competition  and played for lesser academy teams have gone on to higher things.

Forest were just an example of a club who's first team has never really had a clear identity, but it doesn't seem to have caused the problems that are being discussed in the earlier posts, where the choice of manager-type is being upheld as a factor of utmost importance.

So maybe it doesn't warrant quite as much concern as is being attributed to it.

And maybe the better approach is one where we're not beholden to producing players to such exacting qualities / styles.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Kokosnuss

[duncanjwitham]

Who exactly are all these Forest academy players that everyone is raving about?  Brennan Johnson obviously looks very good.  Yates, Worrall and Matty Cash are all good but came through like 5+ years ago.  The likes of Oliver Burke and Ben Osborn seem to have turned into bang average championship players and again, came through years ago.  Alex Mighten barely kicked a ball for them last season.  There’s probably a few more kids on the fringes if their first team, but there doesn’t really seem to be a conveyor belt of fabulous players flowing into their first team. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Andicis said:

I like our academy, but it's worth asking the question when was the last player we produced that really ''made'' it? Knight, Sibley and Bird are decent but other clubs are producing players worth 10s of millions. Hendrick was the last academy product we sold for good money. 

Hughes fetched a decent price, albeit under our expectation. Bogle and Lowe fetched £11m from Sheffield United. Knight, Sibley, Bird and Cashin are probably the only players in our current squad who at present would realise a decent transfer fee and they all came through our academy.

Through the administration process, we were asset stripped by the enforced sales of Ebosele, Plange, Ebowie, Dylan Williams, Kellyman and the three U15 players plundered by Man. Utd. Then there was Delap to Man. City and Gordon to Liverpool. I might have missed one or two more but nowhere near as many as you.

Much as I like you Andicis, I sure am grateful that you're not my accountant 😂.

[ilkleyram]

2 hours ago, Brailsford Ram said:

There's a lot on here being said by posters who never make a contribution or show an interest in the Academy Forum on here. The regular posters on there show an interest, watch the games and what they have to say about the academy is far more informed than what is being said on this thread. Unless you know a bit about what is happening in the academy stick to the first team or alternatively start watching the academy sides a bit more before giving the rest of us your 'informed' opinions. The academy is regarded as an asset and the recent appointments in terms of recruitment and management indicate it will continue to be regarded as such by the ownership.

It was due to the input of a lot of academy players who were thrown in at the deep end that our club was not relegated on the pitch but because of the administrative failures of the Morris regime. The academy has never let us down.

I agree with much of this and especially with your last sentence. I think you could argue even more strongly - that the reason we still have a club to support is because the sale of academy players gave us cash at vital moments to keep us going during the administration process never mind the players that allowed us to field a competitive first team. Last season’s under 23 results were a direct consequence and just sad to see. The players must have been disheartened by season’s end.

But it does make it strange that we have moved on - I presume forced rather than voluntary - one of the architects of the academy in Darren Wassall. Nothing wrong with that if we’ve brought in someone we think is better, or wanting to go in a different direction, but I’m still not clear what that different direction actually is.

[Andicis]

4 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Hughes fetched a decent price, albeit under our expectation. Bogle and Lowe fetched £11m from Sheffield United. Knight, Sibley, Bird and Cashin are probably the only players in our current squad who at present would realise a decent transfer fee and they all came through our academy.

Through the administration process, we were asset stripped by the enforced sales of Ebosele, Plange, Ebowie, Dylan Williams, Kellyman and the three U15 players plundered by Man. Utd. Then there was Delap to Man. City and Gordon to Liverpool. I might have missed one or two more but nowhere near as many as you.

Much as I like you Andicis, I sure am grateful that you're not my accountant 😂.

Bogle was not an academy player, we bought him. and whilst it may not have been that way on restructuring to avoid sell on clauses Lowe was clearly the less valuable of the two. Hughes was sold for much lower than we could have got. None of the four players you've listed would go for more than 2 million. They aren't 10 million pound players. Brennan Johnson is worth those 4 combined with money on top. Worth less than we got for Hendrick too.

Yes, we were asset stripped. That said, the likes of Plange, Ebiowei, Ebosele and Williams were not proven enough to have gone for a large sum. 

Ultimately, I stand by my initial point. Our academy is not as productive as people would claim, and we aren't generating revenues that other clubs with less prestigious academies have been, especially given that category 1 academies are more expensive. FYI I am quite literally an accountant. 

[Andicis]

10 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Who exactly are all these Forest academy players that everyone is raving about?  Brennan Johnson obviously looks very good.  Yates, Worrall and Matty Cash are all good but came through like 5+ years ago.  The likes of Oliver Burke and Ben Osborn seem to have turned into bang average championship players and again, came through years ago.  Alex Mighten barely kicked a ball for them last season.  There’s probably a few more kids on the fringes if their first team, but there doesn’t really seem to be a conveyor belt of fabulous players flowing into their first team. 

Oliver Burke was sold for 13 million. Osborne was sold for 3.5 million. Cash for an initial fee of 14 million. That's the whole point. So what if they aren't that good? They generated huge income and helped the club reinvest. I'd trade our ''better'' academy players for their income, especially as we will be paying more to be a cat 1 academy with little to show for it in revenue.